── Jacob A. Marquez v. Dawn L. Marquez, Dawn L. Marquez v. Jacob A. Marquez ──
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 2026
Category: General
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
[email protected].
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
JACOB A. MARQUEZ, )
) Supreme Court Nos. S-19019/19029
Appellant and )
Cross-Appellee, ) Superior Court No. 3AN-22-07827 CI
)
v. ) OPINION
)
DAWN L. MARQUEZ, ) No. 7806 – April 10, 2026
)
Appellee and )
Cross-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Anchorage, Dani Crosby, Judge.
Appearances: G.R. Eschbacher, Law Offices of Eschbacher
& Eschbacher, Anchorage, for Appellant and Cross-
Appellee. Michael Gershel, Law Office of Michael Gershel,
Anchorage, for Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Before: Carney, Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Henderson,
Pate, and Oravec, Justices.
BORGHESAN, Justice.
INTRODUCTION
This appeal and cross-appeal follow the division of a sizable marital estate
due to divorce. One former spouse contests the following rulings: the superior court’s
decision that the marital landscaping business’s obligation to reclaim lands used for
gravel mining was not a marital debt; the court’s decision to value a truck purchased by
the other spouse after separation according to its fair market value, rather than original
purchase price; its decision not to assign value to certain personal items when no
evidence of those items’ value was presented; and its refusal to amend liens securing
the balance on a large equalization payment. Seeing no reversible error in the superior
court’s rulings, we affirm them.
The other former spouse cross-appeals the superior court’s decision not to
award interest on the first two installments of the equalization payment, which was to
be paid in full over four years. Because the superior court must explain any decision
not to levy interest on an equalization payment, and the court made no explanation here,
we vacate and remand for the court to explain its ruling.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Initial Proceedings And Partial Settlement
Jacob and Dawn Marquez filed for divorce after nearly 42 years of
marriage.1 The superior court promptly issued a divorce decree and bifurcated
proceedings to divide their marital estate, which was worth approximately $8.2 million.
The parties jointly proposed an order apportioning certain assets, which
the superior court adopted. Dawn received a cash distribution from the couple’s
residential rental business. Jacob received a cash distribution from their landscaping
business, Knik Landscaping, and also retained that business. Dawn remained an
employee of Knik Landscaping, receiving a reduced salary and health insurance. The
couple divided ownership of several vehicles, including a truck that Dawn purchased
with cash shortly after separation. Jacob retained the marital home.
B. Property Division Order
The superior court held a two-day property trial, hearing evidence about
remaining property disputes.
1
Dawn died while this appeal was pending. Her estate has been substituted
in her place as a